INRL 2016 0 Politics of European Integration PDF

Preview

Summary

INRL 20160 : Politics of European IntegrationModule InfoHistorical Context 1. Historical milestones (won’t have exam question on it) 2. Theories of European IntegrationCurrent System - Institutions 3. Executive politics 4. Legislative politics 5. Judicial politics and compliance 6. Elections, refere...

Description

INRL 20160 : Politics of European Integration Module Info Historical Context 1. Historical milestones (won’t have exam question on it) 2. Theories of European Integration Current System - Institutions 3. Executive politics 4. Legislative politics 5. Judicial politics and compliance 6. Elections, referenda, & public opinion 7. Interest representation Policies / Outcomes 8. The EU policy agenda 9. The EU on the world stage and EU enlargement Challenges going forward 10. The Euro Crisis 11. The EU’s democratic deficit 12. Brexit and the EU: Revision (might be on exam but hard to get good grade) Textbooks: Cini & Perez-Solorzano Borragan (2016) 5th e.d. EU Politics, Hix & Hoyland (2011) 3rd ed. The Political System of the European Union Submit in PDF format Prof Email: [email protected] (Office Hours by apt) Assessment 1. Blog post assignment o 1000 words excluding bibliography o Due March 9th by 5pm through SafeAssign o 20% of Grade o Topic open to anything about the EU, no history & Brexit, have a research question o Best assignments published on www.europedebate.ie o Examples: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog 2. End of year exam o 8 topics will come out the 12 week topics, answer 2 o Past papers are a good guide to what might come up o 80% of grade

HISTORY OF THE EU

Why Study the European Union? o o o o o o o o o

EU is part of the economics, politics and society in this part of the world Impacts on our daily lives High proportion of laws originate at EU level Single Currency experiment Largest Market in the world EU largest contributor of development co-operation in world EU has altered what it is to be a sovereign state To be a member state What is going to happen now that we have Brexit?

Post War Europe o Germany is split, Yugoslavia existed, Czechoslovakia, USSR Border o UK would have had colonies, Allies (now European powerhouses) were weak, economic situation was horrendous o The legacy of war: o By 1945 European governments had three critical needs § Rebuild weakened economies § Ensure security from one another and external threats § Limit the dangers of nationalism o The goals for peace had been set at the 1944 Bretton Woods conference § Importance of free trade and stable exchange rates o Between 1948 and 1951 the Marshall Plan provided financial assistance to European economies in order to encourage post-war recovery o It also provided the foundations for European integration § US insisted on the creation of the Organization for European Economic Co-operation to coordinate the distribution of aid o Increasing tension between the USA and the USSR led to the NATO in 1949, mutual protection to member states and sending a message to Communists o On 9 May 1950, the Schuman Plan (championed by John Monnet and Shuman) announced a roadmap for European integration, first real important step by Europeans themselves o This led to the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1951, which created the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) in 1952: France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg (Western Europe) ● Tasked to have a common market in coal and steel by eliminating duties, discriminatory measures, subsidies or state assistance ● Leadership structure characterized by a balance of power ● The achievements of the European Coal and Steel Community were more symbolic than substantive o Treaty: Rome and the EEC ● Economic integration inspired the signature of the 1957 Treaty of Rome, Led to the foundation in 1958 of the European Economic Community ● Committed its six founding members to the creation of a single market, elimination of customs duties between members, establishment of common policies in agricultural, trade, transport and competition ● Progress was mixed: EEC institutions had little power and integration was mainly an intergovernmental process

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

During the 1960s the EEC was troubled by political disagreements over the power and reach of its institutions (amount of authority at European level) and over enlargement (bringing in more states) Problematic issues ○ Q of deepening and widening the union ○ Supranational or intergovernmental union ○ Imbalance due to weight of Franco-German alliance Rift between de Gaulle and other members Empty chair crisis (1965-6) ○ De Gaulle & French influence, removed all French representatives to stall progress ○ Issues: Veto rights, UK membership, more supranational power Luxembourg Compromise (1966) ○ Result of empty chair crisis ○ More active role for nation states where vital national interests at stake ○ Veto in final instance Hague Summit (1969) ○ Meeting of heads of states, becoming agenda setters ○ EP got new budgetary power ○ New style of agenda setting: summitry ○ Formalised in 1974 by establishing European Council - institutionalized ○ Preparation for enlargement Britain became more amenable to joining ○ UK risked political and economic isolation ○ Vetoes by De Gaulle in 63 and 67 delayed British membership until January 1973 ○ Denmark and Ireland also joined ○ Greece joined in 1981, Portugal and Spain in 1986 (after democracy was established) ○ Largest economic block in the world ○ Influence of the EEC was greatly boosted Monetary union: Initial steps in the 1970s ○ Exchange rate stability had been central to western economic and monetary policy since Bretton Woods ○ The first attempt to pave the way to a single currency ○ Failed mainly because of oil crisis in 1973 ○ Replaced by the Economic Monetary System (EMS) in 1979 ■ Used an Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) based on a European Currency Unit (ECU), a basket of western European currencies ■ Governments made efforts to keep national currencies stable within ERM Treaty: Single European Act ○ Concerns about slow progress on completing the single market lead to agreement on the 1986 Single European Act ○ Aims: ■ Remove the remaining physical, technical and fiscal barriers to the single market by 1992

■

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

New prominence to ‘cohesion’ (balanced economic and social development) ■ Target of creating equal employment opportunities and working conditions Context: International events ○ The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 symbolized the end of the Cold War division of Europe ○ Need for the EEC to assert itself on the global stage ○ However the failure to agree on a common response to the 1990-91 Gulf War and the Balkans crisis undermined political credibility ○ The Community was failing to match its economic power with an international political presence Response: From Community to Union ○ Treaty on European Union (Maastricht, 1992) created the European Union ■ Commitment to a single European currency ■ Established ECB, Committee of regions, Ombudsman ■ Introduced co-decision & more QMV ■ Three pillars: Existing European communities – supranational Common foreign and security policy – intergovernmental Justice and home affairs- intergovernmental ○ Treaty raised questions about national sovereignty ○ The term Euroscepticism entered the public debate ○ Hostility to integration, growing gap between EU and European citizens Enlargement 1995 ○ In 1993 the Copenhagen conditions were agreed ■ New approach was taken to enlargement applications ■ Called conditionality where applicants had to be democratic, capitalist and agree to adopt the entire existing body of the EU laws and policies (the acquis communautaire) – transfer into national statutes Maastricht Treaty left unfinished business ○ Reforming the institutional structure (Co-decision) to make decision making more efficient ○ Treaty of Amsterdam amended this (signed 1997, in force 1999) ○ Minor changes, as well as Treaty of Nice Monetary Union: the Euro ○ Preparations were underway, named Euro in 1995 ○ Convergence criteria were agreed as preconditions for participation with controls on: budget deficits, inflation, interest rates Enlargements: 2004, 2007, 2013 ○ Ten new members joined in 2004, eastern European countries following the fall of the Berlin Wall ○ Took membership of EU to 28 Reform Efforts ○ Contention on the Future of Europe (Laeken Declaration 2001)

○

●

●

●

●

Inclusive, democratic, transparent, open ■ Large and diverse participation ■ Public access to plenary sessions and documents ■ Little public attention Failed Constitutional Treaty ○ Agreed at European Council June 2004 ○ Structure: abolished pillar and EC ○ EU as legal personality ○ Institutions: council upgraded (permanent President), Size of EP and Commission capped, Established “Union Minister for Foreign Affairs” ○ Adopted UN Charter of Fundamental Rights, most parliaments ratified but failed ○ French and Dutch referenda failed (2005) Towards Lisbon ○ Death of CT→ Constitutional Crisis ○ Lisbon Treaty was result, cosmetic changes ○ Constitutional references removed ○ Acts of the Union are now called laws ○ “Union Minister for Foreign Affairs” not used ○ “High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security policy” Ratification of Lisbon ○ Mostly parliamentary ratification ○ No in Irish referendum ○ Lack of knowledge and understanding of text ○ Failure of government to address opposition ○ Specific concerns ■ Periodic loss of Irish Commissioner ■ Irish prohibition of abortion ■ Irish neutrality ○ EU didn’t take Irish rejection as seriously ○ European Council 2008 agreed concessions • Each member state to have permanent Commissioner • Confirmed no basis for specific Irish concerns Do only big Treaty changes increase integration? ○ “We decide of something, leave it lying around and wait and see what happens… If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don’t understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back” ■ Not so much treaty changes, big and controversial to cause attention that matter ■ Day to day legislation, secondary law really drives EU integration ■ Jean-Claude Juncker, current head of European Commission, talking about European integration

THEORIES OF POLITICAL INTEGRATION

Topics: Neo-functionalism, critique and revival; Intergovernmentalism, critique and evolution, Beyond the classical debate: institutionalism, rational choice institutionalism, historical and sociological Neo-functionalism ● First theory of regional cooperation post 1945 ○ Ernst B. Haas (1958) ‘The Uniting of Europe: Political, Social and Economic Forces 1950-57) ○ Intended as “grand theory” of integration ○ Europe used as miracle case at the time, early stages of EC integration ● Key features 1. “Spillover” economic and political integration 2. Elitist socialization 3. Role of societal interest groups ● 1950s-1960s ○ Reflected political and economic integration in EC ○ Received much academic attention ● 1970s ○ Failed to reflect European integration process ○ Lacked theoretical base ○ Replaced by nation state based theories ● 1990s ○ Revival due to dynamic integration period Key Features 1. Spillover a. Cooperation in one area→ cooperation in another area b. Three types i. Functional: to maximize one supranational policy outcome, another supranational solution is required. For example, to maximize having a single market, euro and fiscal coordination is required ii. Political: a deliberated political process, government elites drive supranational cooperation iii. Cultivated: supranational actors favour supranational response, over response based on national interest. E.g Commission 2. Elite Socialization a. Development of supranational loyalties i. Away from national level allegiance ii. E.g Commission and COREPER officials (high level bureaucrats in Brussels) iii. See Lewis (1998, 2005); Checkel (2005) b. Implications of elite socialization i. Elite groups loyal to supranational institutions ii. Strong promotion of supranational cooperation iii. Supranational organisations become less political iv. Agenda focused on technocratic solutions (solution of technical problems)

3. Supranational Interest Groups

a. Change in interest group structure i. Establishing supranational/transnational level organisations ii. Reflection of economic and political integration iii. E.g BusinessEurope (formerly UNICE, 1958), Greenpeace, Reinforces demand for further integration b. Consequences of supranational interest groups i. Development of interest group allegiance to supranational institutions (e.g Commission) ii. Interest groups promoted supranational integration to national governments Critiques of Neo-functionalism a. Empirical critique i. Empty chair crisis ii. Little political integration in 1970s, early 1980s iii. Re-affirmation of importance of political leaders iv. Moravcsik (1993): “spillback” b. Theoretical critiques i. Elite socialization hypothesis inaccurate ii. Fails to appreciate international interdependence (Keohane & Nye 1975) iii. Under-plays role of nation state in integration (Moravcisk 1998) c. Integration by stealth not very democratic Neo-functionalist revival a. Early 1990s i. New phase in European integration ii. Following Single European Act and single market iii. REflected neo-functional spillover iv. NF as partial (not grand) theory b. Stone Sweet & Sandholtz (1998) i. Beyond supranational-intergovernmental binary ii. Acknowledges differences in integration across policy areas iii. “Transaction based” theory of integration iv. Bottom up demand for supranational governance comes from cross-border interactions Intergovernmentalism a. Born mid-1960s→ dominant by late 1960s b. Theoretically informed by (neo-)realism that assumes: i. State survival as key consideration ii. States as rational actors in anarchic system iii. Integration as zero sum outcome iv. Inter-state bargaining determined by power c. State-centrism i. Integration driven by nation state interests ii. State sovereignty remains fundamental iii. Commission as “servant” to Council iv. Cooperation in certain policy areas v. Integration NOT inexorable and in one direction

Hoffmann’s Intergovernmentalism -

-

-

-

Mid-1960s - “Empty chair crisis” and the Luxembourg Compromise - Increasing role of the Council and Member State veto Importance of member states not diminished - Maintenance of territorial sovereignty - Democratic credentials ensure political legitimacy - Differences in state interests as important as commonalities Distinction between high and low politics - High = political → national sovereignty - Low = economics (technocratic) --> cooperation States are not black boxers, no winner in domestic politics

Critiques of Intergovernmentalism - “High-low politics” dichotomy artificial - Can we really demote economic questions to low politics? - The constraints due to states’ “interdependence” (Keohane & Nye 1976) underplayed - Hard for states to go it alone (See: Brexit) - The novelty & complexity of European integration project not appreciated - Pioneering new form of international politics Liberal Intergovernmentalism ● Developed by Moravcsik in early 1990s ○ “European integration can best be explained as a series of rational choices made by national leaders” (Moravcsik 1998:18) ○ Domestic politics matter but idea of a two-level game (Putnam 1988) ○ State leaders are important by explaining why certain states decide to give some parts of power to the intergovernmental level, constrained by domestic politics ● Three key factors explain integration 1. Domestic economic interest 2. Relative bargaining power a. E.g importance of France, Germany and UK 3. Potential benefits of supranational institutions a. Guarantee of credible inter-state commitments b. Efficient bargaining through reduced transaction costs Economic interest + relative power + credible commitments = European Integration (prerequisites) Critiques of Liberal Intergovernmentalism ● Failure to reflect actual integration pattern ○ Moravcsik’s cases too narrow in focus - case selection ● Need more broad conception of the state ○ Almost solely focuses on economic concerns ● Underplays constraints on states ○ Commission and ECJ do have some power ● It is unfalsafiable (Wincott 1995) ○ It is an analytic framework, not falsafiable theory

Beyond the “classical debate” ● Neofunctionalism vs. Intergovernmentalism/ LI debate fails to capture reality of integration ○ NF offered inaccurate account from 1970s ○ IG offered only partial account ● Roots in IR limit focus of both NF and IG ○ NF focus on mechanics of integration process ○ IG focus on diplomacy between national governments ○ But there is much more to EU politics ● Grand theory ambitions unrealistic Comparing classical theories to new institutionalist approaches ● Classical theories ○ Focus on form of integration ○ “Euro-polity” as dependent (explained variable ○ Ask why integration occurs? ● New theories ○ Focus on process of integration ○ “Euro-polity” as independent (explanatory) variable ○ Ask about the effect that integration has? (flipping the focus) Institutionalism ● A preliminary definition of institutions ○ An institution is a set of rules, procedures or norms that structure the relationship between actors ○ Limit and define ways in which it is appropriate to act, delegation of power structures etc ● The EU is highly institutionalised, more so than UN, highly complex ○ Both intergovernmental and supranational institutions ○ Institutional balance fluctuates over time ■ Balance of power, parliamentary structured etc ○ Distinct institutional cultures ○ Both informal and formal behaviour institutionalised ■ Codified, formalized e.g Lisbon treaty that sets out rules, commission setting up legislation ○ Institutions at multiple levels ● Why do institutions matter in the EU? ○ They contain the bias built into society over time ■ Institutions as congealed preferences (Riker 1980) ○ They structure political actions and outcomes (behavioral implications) ○ Economist-rationalist to sociological approaches addres them ■ Rare that such diverse fields agree on anything ○ Three institutionalisms ■ Rational choice institutionalism (RCI) ■ Historical institutionalism (HI) ■ Sociological institutionalism (SI) Rational Choice Institutionalism ● Key features ○ Humans as rational and strategic actors (policy makers take on this perspective)

○

●

● ●

Institutions as “intervening variables” ■ They influence how individuals pursue preferences (behaviour) ○ Institutional changes lead to changes in actor behavior ○ Takes snapshots Themes of analysis ○ Relative power of actors in policy making process ○ “agenda -setting” power - how does difference in institution affect policy outcome and power of different actors ○ “Principal-agent” analysis Allows for development of testable hypotheses ○ Towards accumulation of knowledge Critiques that are often stated but simply wrong ○ No consideration of informal processes ○ Assumes preferences and identities are static

Historical Institutionalism ● Key features ○ Institutions are designed to fulfil a particular function ○ Looks at time ○ Patterns of institutional interaction over time become “locked in” ■ “Path dependent” logic ■ Maastricht - critical juncture that changed nature of EU politics, then everything else after depends on that particular change, role of parliament becomes fundamental ■ Critical juncture: situations of uncertainty in which decisions of important actors are causally decisive for the selection of one path of institutional development over other possible paths (Capoccia 2016) ○ Pre-existing institutions address new challenges ■ Limits possible action and slows/prohibits reform Sociological Institutionalism ● Key features ○ Influenced by “constructivist turn” ○ Rejects rationalist approaches (RCI and HI) ■ Rejects POV that actor’s rational behavior is exogenous to process ○ Informed by constructivist ontology ■ Interests/preferences are product of (not independent from) interaction between actors ● Themes of analysis ○ Institutional behaviour and norms (rather than formal institutional structures, more infor...